2024 (11) TMI 1431 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee wins Section 68 addition case as share sale transactions deemed genuine despite bogus capital gains allegations

Dipika Jitesh Palrecha Versus Income Tax Officer-19 (1) (4), Mumbai

ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee regarding addition under Section 68 for alleged bogus long-term capital gains. The tribunal found that evidence ... Addition made u/s. 68 - Bogus LTCG - HELD THAT:- Evidences furnished by the assessee to prove the purchase and sale of shares, payment made/received, entry/exit of shares in the demat account of the assessee etc., were not doubted with. Since the AO has not established that the assessee was involved in price rigging and further the AO did not find fault with any of the documents furnished by the assessee. Since we have held that the sale transactions of shares cannot be doubted with, the addition made by the AO with regard to estimated commission expenses is also liable to be deleted. We hold that the sale consideration received on sale of shares cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and the long term capital gains declared by the assessee cannot be doubted with. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete - Decided in favour of assessee. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:The validity of the reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 2014-15.The legitimacy of the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained cash credits from the sale of shares.The legitimacy of the addition made under Section 69C of the Act, regarding estimated commission expenses for procuring alleged bogus long-term capital gains.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISValidity of Reopening of AssessmentRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The reopening of assessment is governed by the provisions of the Income Tax Act, which allow for reassessment if there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue, as the primary focus was on the substantive additions made by the AO.Conclusion: The Tribunal left this issue open, deeming it academic in nature after deciding in favor of the assessee on substantive grounds.Addition under Section 68 - Unexplained Cash CreditsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act pertains to unexplained cash credits, where the burden is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the AO relied heavily on the generalized report from the Investigation Wing without specific evidence linking the assessee to any price manipulation activities.Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided substantial documentation, including broker notes, bank statements, and demat statements, to support the genuineness of the transactions.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found no defects in the evidence provided by the assessee and noted that the AO failed to establish any connection between the assessee and the alleged price rigging activities.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides, noting the lack of any direct evidence against the assessee and the absence of any inquiry by SEBI.Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the sale consideration from the shares could not be treated as unexplained cash credit and directed the deletion of the addition under Section 68.Addition under Section 69C - Estimated Commission ExpensesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69C deals with unexplained expenditure, where the onus is on the revenue to prove that the expenditure was indeed incurred and unexplained.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that since the primary transaction of share sales was deemed genuine, the related estimated commission expenses could not be upheld.Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition under Section 69C, as it was contingent on the validity of the Section 68 addition.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established: The Tribunal reaffirmed that generalized reports from investigation agencies cannot be the sole basis for additions without specific evidence linking the assessee to the alleged activities.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT (A) and directed the AO to delete the additions made under Sections 68 and 69C. The legal ground concerning the reopening of assessment was left open as academic.Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized, 'there is no reason to suspect the purchase and sale of shares undertaken by the assessee,' highlighting the lack of evidence against the assessee's transactions.